Case Study

463

Copyright © 2019, IGI Global. Copying or distributing in print or electronic forms without written permission of IGI Global is prohibited.

Chapter 27

DOI: 10.4018/978-1-5225-6155-2.ch027

ABSTRACT

In response to environmental volatility, uncertainty, and change, seven not-for-profit organizations decided to join forces to deliver more efficient and effective solutions to deeply rooted social and educa- tional challenges in the city of Birmingham, West Midlands, United Kingdom. From the perspective of the change agent, this reflective case history explores the processes involved in developing the network and the successes and challenges associated with its people and their ambitions for the future.

INTRODUCTION

Strength in Numbers

Against a backdrop of sweeping cuts to public spending, the demise of local services and a marked increase in social upheaval, chief executive officers (CEOs) from 7 culturally and economically diverse not-for-profit organisations based in Hodge Hill, Birmingham, UK, joined forces to protect community assets and to find ‘network based’ solutions to deep rooted social and educational challenges. Champi- oned by Birmingham City Council, and supported by local stakeholders, the idea behind heatnetwork (Hodge Hill Enterprising Active and Transforming Network) was a simple one; through the combining of organisational resources and capabilities, cost efficiencies would be achieved, local competition avoided, and bargaining power strengthened when competing regionally and nationally for scarce resources to support the 121,678 adults and children residing in one of England’s most deprived areas. In total, the organisations that comprised heatnetwork (Crossover, St Margaret’s Community Trust, Somali Dis- ability & Elderly Support Group, Comm:Pact, Worth Unlimited, Aim Higher Education Link and Our Community) employed over 100 staff and engaged 250 volunteers to deliver more than 1000 activities to three-quarters of the local population each year. In 2009, reported turnovers amounted to circa £3m

Strength in Numbers? Shaping Collaboration During a

Period of Uncertainty and Change

Barry Joseph D’Souza Walking Among Giants Limited, UK

464

Strength in Numbers?

(combined). Individually, each organisation was contributing significantly to neighbourhood manage- ment and had achieved city-wide respect for positively impacting the areas of education and training, employment, social care and youth and community regeneration. In 2010, with a great deal of good will, and a renewed sense of optimism, a formal working agreement was signed, and the CEOs began meeting fortnightly to plan and progress the work of heatnetwork.

When Reality Bites

No sooner had the network started meeting, then the bottom fell out from under the sector. Across the nation funded organisations were losing financial support overnight. While some were having to dem- onstrate immediate efficiencies for financing to continue, others were less fortunate, and the shutters came down within a matter of weeks. In response to mounting pressure, the CEOs felt railroaded into taking a step back from heatnetwork and reluctantly adopted a ‘survival of the fittest’ mentality as they scrambled to protect jobs and to secure the futures of their discrete organisations.

Where There’s a Will There’s a Way

Although the work of the network had stalled, the desire to work collaboratively remained unabated, and with the support of local influencers and a constituency wide appeal for financial help, a little funding was found to drive forward the development of heatnetwork with the help of an external consultant.

Incumbent within the not-for-profit sector, I had for a period of 10 years operated across Birmingham, UK at a strategic level bringing together private, public and third sector organisations to help create life changing participatory music opportunities for disadvantaged children. Due to our combined suc- cesses in for example reducing anti-social behaviour, improving literacy rates, elevating general levels of wellbeing, and securing sustained levels of funding, I was engaged by heatnetwork to help progress the project over the short term.

Unresolved Tensions

Further to a document review (heatnetwork formal working agreement and terms of reference, and the annual reports and business plans for each of the organisations) my first contact with heatnetwork was via one to one meetings with each of the CEOs (now to be referred to as board members). Each spoke candidly about their professional and organisational challenges, their ideas for the network, and the im- mediate obstacles that would need to be overcome if heatnetwork was to flourish. Given that 6 of the 7 organisations were faith based (3 Christian and 3 Muslim), there were many religious and cultural sensi- tivities that needed to be managed. For example, whilst lottery funding was viewed as a key opportunity to exploit by Christian based organisations, from an Islamic perspective, it was derived from gambling and therefore ‘haram’. The largest of the organisations – a Church of England limited company led by a vicar whose previous career had been in corporate accounting - was viewed by some of the smaller organisations as one more focussed on ‘empire building’ rather than on genuine collaborative working. Another, led by a local labour councillor, often arose suspicion due to a possibility that the CEO might have been operating in ways designed to further personal political ambition. The smallest organisations voiced concerns about functioning in the shadows of the larger ones and their difficulties in exerting

465

Strength in Numbers?

influence. Many expressed concerns over the recently elected Chair’s ability to resolve internal issues quickly and effectively and to successfully advocate for increased resources amongst external stakeholders.

Initial Diagnosis

It soon became apparent that whilst ambition for heatnetwork was driven by a noble vision for the fu- ture “To have built a community in which people are empowered and supported to bring about positive change” (D’Souza, 2012, p.6), little attention had been paid towards developing the behaviours and processes necessary to achieve the dream. Within the context of environmental volatility, emerging opportunities and threats would need to be explored and this would involve board members having to think strategically and to collectively agree upon an appetite for risk. If heatnetwork were to flourish, then firm commitments towards sharing resources and capabilities would need to be in place. Would this be the time where tension within the group surfaced? Would those organisations able to commit more resources demand more reward, and if so, how could a sense of equality within the network be maintained? Furthermore, if my intervention were to be successful, then any course of action would need to support the harmonisation of both religious and cultural differences and to manage the expectations of 7 CEOs who were all used to ‘running their own shows’. As a starting point to answering my own questions, I turned to theories of culture and deviant behaviour in the workplace (Hofstede, 2011, and Nair & Bhatnagar, 2011) which in turn provided me with a conceptual base to work from.

Scoping the Project

By their own admission, board members had already identified a deficit of strategic thinking within the group and were now keen to develop heatnetwork from within a structured approach which they believed would maximise their chances of success. However, with no pre-conceived ideas as to how to move forward, onus for scoping out the project brief was transferred to the chair and me. Together we outlined a plan which, over a period of 6 months would include environmental and risk analyses, the development of leadership behaviours, and the production of a three-year strategic plan. Furthermore, upon my insistence, process work (including diagnostics) would be undertaken by the whole group to ensure methodology and learning was transferred and embedded within the new organisation.

GROUP WORK

Setting the Stage for Change

The concept of change was explored as being something constant and inevitable and made up of a few distinct stages – stability, disruption, chaos, and adaption. Board members were quick to proffer examples and anecdotes drawn from their personal and professional lives which in turn afforded me opportunities to tease out and explore good and best practice examples of entrepreneurial effectiveness. An unexpected outcome arising from this activity was a growing sense of camaraderie that soon developed on the back of what could only be described as open and honest conversations. Next, we explored drivers – both internal and external – specific to the sector and to the organisations incumbent within. Board members were encouraged to voice their hopes and concerns for the futures of their organisations, the emerging

466

Strength in Numbers?

network, and their ongoing abilities to positively affect social change. I then mapped my own temporary role as change agent against the 7-step change theory framework (Lippet, Watson, & Westley, 1958) and in doing so, a rich line of questioning and a general discussion evolved which focussed on change objects, formulation of strategy and plans, and the need for continuity with respect to board members managing the change process once my contract terminated. Exploring the theme in more detail, I introduced a model of team roles (Belbin,1993) to assist me in dissecting the roles, skills and behaviours necessary to successfully manage a programme of change and, through scenario-based tasks, members were given opportunities to reflect upon their strengths and weaknesses and to commit to adopting both roles and responsibilities which would ensure the forward momentum of heatnetwork.

Exploring the Changing Landscape

Revisiting the notions of disruption and chaos, I facilitated a STEEP (sociological, technological, eco- nomic, ecological, and political) analysis of the macro environment. Discussion was rich with respect to emerging trends - especially at social and political levels. Best guesses concerning future funding were tested through scenario and sensitivity planning and from the points of arrival, quality opportuni- ties and threats were identified. A collective appetite for risk was far more difficult to achieve. With a ‘speculate to accumulate’ culture more prevalent amongst the smaller entrepreneurial organisations contrasted with a more conservative ‘preserve and protect’ culture exhibited by the larger ones, it was necessary to explore motive. It soon became clear that those organisations with limited assets (including human resources) were willing and able to respond to change more readily compared to others which stood more to lose if things went awry. Consequently, it was agreed that only low to medium risk op- portunities would be exploited by heatnetwork leaving individual organisations to pursue higher risk openings as they saw fit. Furthermore, given the religious sensitivity concerning lottery funds, a deal was struck whereby any applications submitted through the network for such funding would be led and managed by one of the Christian faith-based organisations with limited in-kind support being delivered by the Muslim faith-based groups.

Collaboration Not Competition

Analysis of the competitive environment posed another cultural challenge for the group albeit without internal factions this time! Although group members were acutely aware of a heavy demand for scarce resources, the idea of competition at regional and sub-regional levels had been little explored mainly because collaborative efforts were seen critical to achieving the ‘more with less’ outcomes demanded by funders. Moreover, as each organisation had a similar vision for Hodge Hill, the concept of competition and a competitive environment appeared counterintuitive. As such, it was suggested that I dispense with the term competitive environment and proceed with an analysis of the ‘collaborative environment’. Using the ‘Five Forces’ framework (Porter,1977), we adapted the model to include the bargaining power of beneficiaries (being distinct from service buyers) and explored the potential for industry collaboration (rather than rivalry) by way of opening membership of heatnetwork to additional organisations. On a point of semantics, it was considered appropriate to substitute the word ‘threat’ with ‘possibility’. Once the model was fully adapted (a wonderful exercise in teambuilding in itself), further opportunities and threats were identified.

467

Strength in Numbers?

Thinking About Resources

The resources and capabilities framework (Grant,1991) was particularly useful for exposing the full extent of tangible resources that would potentially be shared within the network. As no previous thought had been given over to intangibles such as know-how, motivation and culture, a rich discussion evolved which allowed me a useful and appropriate opportunity to digress towards the work of Hofstede (1974) and his cultural dimensions theory to explain and explore some of the tensions that may have been felt within the group. Although the author was looking at corporate diversity issues, his classifications were of great interest to members who readily mapped their own experiences onto the paradigm. Whilst no specific outcome was forthcoming, it was evident from impromptu feedback that some learning had been achieved, and that cross-cultural communication was a skill worth developing within the network given the diversity of its membership.

Resolving Tensions

Back on track with Grant (1991), an analysis of capabilities was restricted to focussing on upon leverag- ing core competencies across organisations – skills, expertise, community knowledge, etc, together with the ‘intrinsic’ leadership qualities deemed necessary and specific to the sector. Once mapped out, board members were facilitated towards considering how best they could assign value to their resources and capabilities and to then identify a fair and equitable formula that would link investment to reward. The ensuing deliberation – at times a little heated - allowed for the tensions associated with power struggles and secret agendas to surface. I intentionally allowed the discussion to continue until passions weaned somewhat, at which point I employed the NLP (neuro linguistic programming) linguistic tool of chunking up and down to control the flow of conversation from abstract to specific, and vice versa until agree- ment was reached. To provide a level of reassurance over the need to openly deal with difficult issues, I briefly discussed ideas relating to high performance teams (Tuckman & Jensen,1965) which sparked rich questioning and discussion focussed upon emotional regulation and relationship management.

Achieving Breakthrough

Further to a period of reflection and one-to-one coaching sessions, the matters of value, investment and reward were picked up once more and this time group members worked speedily and cooperatively to reach consensus. When applying for funding, the two largest organisations would act as leads, and if successful, be responsible for managing administrative and monitoring processes. In return they would be compensated with 10% of any secured funds. Organisational expertise would be provided in kind on a case by case basis and funds would be devolved proportionately to those organisations involved in the practical delivery of project work. Those responsible for delivery would also be responsible for securing outcomes. Financial clawbacks would apply if pre-agreed targets were not achieved. As Birmingham City Council had by now agreed to second a member of staff to heatnetwork for 24 months, it was decided that marketing and evaluation would be handled internally and a 10% management fee for these services would be applied to each funding application. The fulltime member of staff would be line managed by the CEO of Crossover and report to the board monthly.

468

Strength in Numbers?

Defining Objectives

With a structure now emerging and resources and capabilities committed, strengths and weaknesses of heatnetwork were audited, and a completed SWOT (strengths, weaknesses, opportunities, and threats) analysis produced. Management frameworks, models and techniques were introduced as and when ap- propriate to support the group to identify and prioritise ways to exploit opportunities, defend against threats, heighten strengths and minimise/eliminate weaknesses over a 2-year period. Any gaps identi- fied during this process formed the basis of organisational objectives to be achieved across the period.

Testing Assumptions

With a set of objectives drafted, testing for robustness was necessary to ensure that the selected pattern of activities would contribute towards achieving the overarching aims of heatnetwork. In addition to running each through SMART (specific, measurable, attainable, relevant, timebound) criteria, cartesian logic and questioning techniques (Gaukroger, 2002) were utilised to highlight a need for contingency planning. What will happen if x happens, what will happen if x does not happen? What won’t happen if x happens? What won’t happen if x does not happen? At first, members found this technique difficult to master (especially when having to answer questions built upon double negatives) however, as the exercise progressed, and fluency developed, each clearly demonstrated higher levels of critical thinking and expressed enthusiasm for being challenged to view individual scenarios from multiple perspectives.

One to One Coaching Sessions

Coaching sessions served the dual purpose of ironing out unresolved interpersonal challenges that mani- fested during the initial one-to-one meetings and group work, and for exploring leadership styles and behaviours using trait, style, and contingency theories. As a precursor to these ninety-minute sessions (of which each board member benefited from six) an Everything Disc ® Work of Leaders Profile was completed to assist board members to reflect upon their effectiveness as leaders across the three param- eters of creating a vision, building alignment, and championing execution (of the vision). The tool was particularly useful for enabling analysis and exploration of how one individual might be perceived by another or by the group, for understanding motive and for paving the way towards behaviour modifica- tion. Sessions were supported with tasking focussed on promoting experiential learning and developing higher levels of emotional intelligence through the practise and integration of NLP techniques. Whilst the quality of work produced through tasking was high, commitment towards completion was varied due to the time constraints of board members. In my regular coaching practice, further sessions are only booked once tasking has been completed thereby allowing clients to work at their own pace. However, in this case, due to the relatively short timeframe I was operating with, forty-two coaching sessions delivered across four months needed to be achieved if the intervention was to progress as agreed. Unfortunately, this less than ideal situation was not picked up by me at the contracting stage as I wrongly assumed that I would be able to deliver sessions over the full six-month period of the contract.

469

Strength in Numbers?

Independent Work to Support the Process

Early document review spring boarded me towards conducting discrete STEEP analyses at EU and UK levels. Focusing primarily on social, economic, and political factors I made informed assumptions as to how the English not-for-profit, education and social care sectors would be impacted over a three-year. This insight enabled me through individual and group sessions to surface alternative scenarios that may otherwise have gone undetected. From my early meetings with board members, it became apparent that if heatnetwork was to develop into an organisation of influence, then early exposure to stakeholder theory would be necessary to broaden the perspectives of some of the smaller organisations whose limited concerns focussed solely upon satisfying the needs of service users. As such, stakeholder analysis and prioritisation using adapted frameworks of Patton and Comforth (1991) and Johnson and Scholes (1993) provided me with a greater insight as to how potential partnerships along with their potential opportuni- ties & threats could play out into the future. Again, these scenarios were presented during individual and group sessions as additional things to consider. Due to the extent of environmental volatility, I was clear about wanting to frame the development of heatnetwork within the context of ‘change’ and did so through adopting a loose association with the 8 Step model of Change (Kotter,1995). However, given the makeup of the heatnetwork board – all leaders in their own right - I made greater use of the “7 Step Change Theory” (Lippet, Watson, & Westley 1958) as it allowed me to focus their attention more on their roles and responsibilities as change agents rather than on the evolution of the change itself. By positioning the board at cause rather than affect the inherent sense of urgency to perform was viewed as something motivational rather than as a final effort to avoid failure.

CONCLUDING REFLECTIONS

A group of people driven by vocation and a desire to make a difference was the critical success factor that this programme was hinged on. Despite having to deal with multiple challenges, 7 CEOs demonstrated enthusiasm and commitment towards building a vision for the future. The use of management theory and frameworks proved extremely useful to encourage debate, broaden thinking, and transfer the responsibility of organisational development to the board. This in turn positively impacted the individuals’ abilities to lead and manage change and to do so at both network and organisational levels. Dealing with change at the level of culture was always going to be difficult given the diverse makeup of the group and it is in this area that I believe the programme was least successful. All too often, due to time constraints imposed by the contract, I felt it uncomfortable but necessary to halt discussion to move forward, to complete work packages and to meet deadlines. Yet in doing so I remained acutely aware that such discussions would still need to happen if establishing and harmonising the transcultural identity of the new network was to be successful. In hindsight, what was lacking was the addition of a (real or virtual) space, or forum that would allow for structured discussion to continue outside of contact time. I am in no doubt that some less structured or informal time built into the delivery of group work (either through a series of whole day sessions or better still a residential) would have proven more beneficial than the half day model that was utilised. For the reason already stated, the six-month timeframe to complete the programme was in some ways a little short. Furthermore, behavioural change takes time to embed and, especially when where there are tensions that require resolution, processes cannot be rushed if outcomes are to be fully realised. Board members’ understanding of the change management process - what it meant, what

470

Strength in Numbers?

it entailed, who it involved, and how it could be managed – was arrived at through gradual exposure to new knowledge and skills and a commitment towards iterative learning and reflection; both inside and outside of training sessions. Had coaching sessions been scheduled across nine to twelve months with the first sessions commencing at the half-way point of training (rather than from the outset of the pro- gramme), I believe that some of this crucial learning and reflection could have been leveraged to yield higher quality outcomes for the individuals.

My insistence to operate as a facilitator rather than as a consultant paid off well. By training board members to use and manipulate management frameworks, tools, and techniques to help achieve their goals, the group developed in confidence as the process progressed. I was encouraged to learn how in- dividual members planned to transfer and embed new learning within their own organisations and how two were considering undertaking formal training in business and management studies. My one regret was that again, due to time constraints, I would not have a role to play in supporting board members to routinise new knowledge, skills and behaviours in a manner that was consistent and conducive to best practice in change management.

In summary my recommendations would be:

• Adopt a facilitative role when using management theory and frameworks. The goals should be to encourage debate, broaden thinking and ensure that analyses are owned by the client. Be prepared to adapt frameworks if necessary and wherever possible reduce complexity (including the use of jargon) to a minimum.

• Remain mindful of the true amount of time and support necessary to effect behavioural change. Focus some attention towards creating the necessary spaces (real or virtual) for client interaction outside of formal contact time. Also, give sufficient thought to the most appropriate sequencing of coaching sessions bearing in mind that clients will most likely be conflicted due to heavy work- loads and competing priorities.

• Encourage sustainable learning practices from the outset. Whether acting as teacher, facilitator, consultant, mentor or coach, the change agent should work towards embedding learning through a combination of three sequential strategies: knowledge transfer (via teaching resources, facilitated discussions and learning materials), risk free experimentation (via individual and group-based ac- tivities being introduced into sessions), and risk attached experiential learning (where new knowl- edge, competencies and behaviours are applied in the workplace).

• Underpin learning strategies with a requirement for the client to rigorously reflect on their expe- riences so that meaningful coaching interventions can be introduced to effectively support their development.

• Adopt a structured approach to reflective practice to enable personal creativity and innovation to flourish. Using an adapted model of structural reflection (Johns,1994) I iteratively recorded and referred to my thoughts and experiences with the intention of loosening fixed ideas, breaking free of routine, and generating new and novel ways of achieving outcomes.

By the time my contract terminated, and I had bid farewell to my colleagues, I left heatnetwork confident that they were stronger for having undertaken the process and that I, in some small way had also contributed to making a difference for the residents and communities of Hodge Hill. And that is a wonderful thought!

471

Strength in Numbers?

REFERENCES

Belbin, R. M. (1993). Team roles at work. Oxford, UK: Butterworth-Heinemann.

D’Souza, B. J. (2012). heatnetwork business plan (2012-2015). Retrieved from https://www.walkingam- onggiants.co.uk/

Grant, R. M. (2010). Contemporary strategy analysis. Chichester, UK: Wiley.

Hofstede, G. (2011). Dimensionalizing Cultures: The Hofstede Model in Context. Online Readings in Psychology and Culture, 2(1). doi:10.9707/2307-0919.1014

Kotter, J. P. (2010). Leading change. Boston, MA: Harvard Business Review Press.

Lippet, R., Watson, J. C., & Westley, B. H. (1958). The dynamics of planned change; a comparative study of principles and techniques. New York, NY: Harcourt, Brace.

Nair, N., & Bhatnagar, D. (2011). Understanding workplace deviant behavior in non-profit organisations. Nonprofit Management & Leadership, 21(3), 289–309. doi:10.1002/nml.20026

Porter, M. E. (2004). Competitive strategy: techniques for analysing industries and competitors. New York, NY: Free Press.

Scholes, K., & Johnson, G. (1993). Exploring corporate strategy. New York, NY: Prentice-Hall.

Thomas, A. B. (2004). Controversies in management: issues, debates, answers. London: Routledge.

Tuckman, B., & Jensen, M. (1977). Stages of small group development revisited. Group & Organization Studies, 2(4), 419–427. doi:10.1177/105960117700200404